|Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001
Thanks for the kind words.
In my view, the problem with the "debate" on global warming is that it's really a debate about model results. The models in use are not adequate to use for a decision, and those using them as a decisive thing are in error (in my opinion). Another factor that is not in those models, as you point out, is the effect of the actual weather engineering (massively) that has been ongoing for some decades, particularly since July 1975. So trying to "fit" or "use" a model without accounting for a very substantial variable, obviously will not adequately do the job.
Now that said, it means we can't trust the models (for either yes or no) and we have to take a "what's physically happening, how much, where, etc." view of the pieces of the puzzle. And there, at least there is excellent evidence that something quite unique is happening. The South polar regions are showing quite substantial melting, as are the glaciers etc. mostly all over.
In short, in the absence of exact modelability, we have to use the old "intelligence method" of indicators. There, one posits a thesis, and then looks for indicators. When one gets, say, seven major indicators in agreement with the thesis, then that thesis is very probably true. Just now, I would tend to agree with the environmentalists, if I take this approach and disregard the totally inadequate modeling results. So it needs a more thorough discussion from the "indicators and their probability" viewpoint, rather than from the "model says this and model says that" viewpoint.
Just now, the fringes of both viewpoints -- global warming yes and global warming no -- have taken up dogmatic positions, and left reason behind.
The other thing is not to just argue interminably about it, but do something very concrete about it, assuming that global warming is occurring and that it is largely due to the unburned hydrocarbons (note I said ASSUMING). In that case, rapid development and deployment of electrical power systems taking their energy directly from the active vacuum will first alleviate and then largely correct the problem.
Sadly, neither the scientific community, the environmental activists, the Department of Energy, the Universities, or the great National Laboratories have any funded, well-staffed projects ongoing in the vacuum energy area -- even though every electrical circuit and electrical grid line ever built is and always has been powered by EM energy extracted directly from the vacuum.
Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1957 for their prediction of broken symmetry, including the broken symmetry of opposite charges -- such as on the two ends of a dipole. Broken symmetry rigorously means that the source dipole, once forcibly formed in the generator or battery, then extracts EM energy from the vacuum in virtual photon form, transduces it into real EM observable energy, and pours it out of the terminals of the generator or battery, filling space around the external conductors and circuit attached. Until the scientific and environmental communities really comprehend what the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in 1957 means for what powers an electrical power system and electrical circuit, we are doomed to see the same tired old destruction of the biosphere and its pollution, by the present massive assault to get fuels for burning to heat water to make steam to turn the turbines that rotate the shaft of the generators, so they can transduce their input shaft energy to internal magnetic field energy, so that the internal magnetic field energy can be dissipated upon the internal charges, forcing them apart to form that source dipole.
Sadly, no university in the United States teaches what really powers an electrical circuit. The standard U(1) electrodynamics the electrical power engineers take, already assumes that the electrical system is in an inert vacuum and in a flat spacetime. The first of those two totally erroneous assumptions has been falsified in particle physics for about a half century, and the second has been falsified by general relativity for nearly a century.
So if we do have global warming (judging from the indicators), then the resulting cause -- burning all those hydrocarbons just to get electrical power -- doesn't even have to be done.
But first we have to re-orient electrical engineering and expand it to include the supersystem -- consisting of three interacting parts: (1) the system and its dynamics, under the assumption of an inert vacuum and flat spacetime, (2) the local active vacuum and its dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics. All three components of the supersystem continuously interact with each other.
So engineers whose model arbitrarily destroys the other two components of the supersystem, have unwittingly destroyed any net interaction between the system and its active environment. If we built windmills the way they build power systems, we would build the windmills inside a closed barn, so no free wind from the environment could blow on it. Then we would have to crank the windmill ourselves, all the while waxing eloquent on the state of our science and technology.
Not the way to build a windmill, and not the way to build electrical power systems whose ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit guarantees that the system itself enforces the Lorentz symmetry condition, negating any inputs from the active local vacuum and the active curvatures of local spacetime.
So long as we do that, at least we will continue to produce massive indicators of global warming, continue to vastly pollute the environment including both the oceans and the atmosphere, kill off species, etc.
And that is very sad, because the cost of a single major powerplant would solve the problem for the rest of time. It's an eminent doable.
But first we have to change the additional mindset that classical equilibrium thermodynamics applies universally. That simply is not so, as proven by the waterwheel, windmill, sailboat, kite, etc. In an open system far from equilibrium, one can have a system which outputs more energy than the operator himself has to input, and can even have a system that is "self-powering" for both itself and its load -- it just takes all the energy from its active environment.
The thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium, and thus free to receive and use net energy from their active environment, already clearly shows us that COP>1.0 is permitted. First we have to muzzle that vocal and strident minority that always objects to COP>1.0 systems as being perpetual motion machines and against the second law of classical (equilibrium) thermodynamics. Those fellows just need to read the literature and discover that classical equilibrium thermodynamics and its infamous second law do not even apply to systems far from equilibrium with their active environment.
Meanwhile, all our electrical power engineers are taught to use a crippled electrodynamics model that deliberately discards (arbitrarily) the active environment of every electrical power system. And they are taught to use the closed current loop to insure that the system itself self-enforces the Lorentz condition, thereby self-destroying and negating any extra energy input from the external active environment.
To paraphrase Nikola Tesla, it continues to be one of the most inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind that has ever been recorded in history.
But until that fearsome scientific and engineering mindset is finally broken, we will continue to have models that are quite incapable of dealing with the problem of whether or not there is global warming. Best approach would just be to quit arguing and get on with developing clean electrical power systems that do not destroy their source dipoles (with the resulting input of energy from the vacuum) faster than they power their loads.